M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 452/2017 Narendra Singh Parihar S/o Keshav Singh Parihar Age 45 years Occupation – Retired R/o New Surya Vihar Colony Near Dane Baba Pinto Park Murar Gwalior (M.P.) ... Appellant VERSUS.

1. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Through Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Usha Kiley, Itava Road Bhind 477 001

2. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Through Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Divisional Office –

Centre Point Complex

2^nd floor, Near Phool Bag M.L.B. Road, Gwalior (M.P.) ….. Respondents BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI HEMANT SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.

SHRI DEEPESH SHUKLA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS.

O R D E R

( 31.07.2025 )

Per say - Justice Sunita Yadav, President.

This appeal by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’), is directed against the order dated 15.2.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhind (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 209/2016, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.

2. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased a second hand Innova Car in the year 2014 bearing registration No. MP-09 MQ 0786. The said car was already registered in taxi quota. Accoridng to complainant, he has purchased the car for personal use and he was supposed to change the registration from ‘taxi quota’ to ‘personal vehicle’ but during that period the insurance policy of the vehicle got expired and he renewed the policy for the period from 8.4.2015 to 17.4.2016. Since he was not intending to use the vehicle as taxi, he has not obtained permit from the R.T.O. Gwalior. On 1.7.2015, when a friend of complaiant take the car of the complainant for his personal work, it met with an accident. Information of the accident was given to oppsotie parties-Insurance Company. Insurance Company appointd a Surveyour, who found it to be a total loss. Complainant filed a claim with the Insurance Company with requisite documents. The complainant also informed the Insurance Company, since he was using the car as personal vehicle, he has not having a valid permit of the car. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 8.8.2016 on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Complainant’s request for settlement of claim on non-standard bais has also been rejected by the Insurance Company. Therefore, alleging deficiency on the part of Insurance Company, the complainant filed the aforesaid complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The Insurance Company resisted the complaint and in their reply submitted that the vehicle in question was insured for the period from 18.4.2015 to 17.4.2016. The insured vehicle was registered as in taxi quota and on the date of incident, i.e. on 1.7.2015, there was no valid and effective permit to ply the vehicle in question. Therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the claim amount and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Commission after appreciating the evidence filed by the parties, disposed of the complaint filed by the complainant with a direction that on complainant’s fulfilling the required information sought by the Insurance Company, vide its letter Annexure C-2, within 20 days from the date of the order, the Insurance Company should decide the claim of the complainant, thereafter within 25 days of receipt of such information from the complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the impugned order is perverse and against the settled principle of law. The District Commission has failed to consider the documents and evidence of the complainant. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the relief claimed by the complainant be granted in his favour.

6. On the other hand, learned